LAWS(ORI)-2006-11-28

STATE OF ORISSA Vs. RAMA SWAIN

Decided On November 14, 2006
STATE OF ORISSA Appellant
V/S
RAMA SWAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Government Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal recorded by learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur on 25-4- 1987 in Sessions Trial No. 229 of 1984/1 of 1985 arising out of G. R. Case No. 107 of 1984, acquitting the accused persons from the charge under Section 37G of the I.P.C.

(2.) The brief fact leading to the initiation of the criminal proceeding and the Sessions Trial as noted above is stated in the following lines : - The victim of the alleged rape and the informant of the case Baiskhi Mahanta has got her mud built house at Niharuni on the land of one Birabara Samanta where she was living with her husband and son. On 9-5-1984 morning the husband of the victim since was suffering from fever went for medical advice to one doctor and the only son had left for the school and while the victim was engaged in removing ash from the fire place accused-Mathura Rout entered into her house on the pretext of taking 'Kattari' for cutting "Tala Saja" and when the victim refused that she had no 'Kattari' and she gave him a sickle, said Mathura Rout left the house. After about ten minutes accused Rama Swain and Shankar Swain came to the house of the victim. Accused Shankar Swain stood at the door and accused Rama Swain told her "BAISHAKHI AJJI VARI MANAHELA MANA KHUSI KARIBAKU ASICHI". Thereafter, he dragged her inside the room and made her lay on the ground, forcibly torn her 'Saya' and raped her. During the course of rape she raised hulla, but Rama Swain gagged her mouth and threatened her with dire consequences. After Rama Swain committed rape Shankar Swain who was at the doorstep immediately pounced upon her and he also raped her. When she was trying to come out of the house, accused Krushna Swain caught hold of her arms and took her and again made her lay on the ground and raped her. After Krushna Swain raped her accused Mathura Rout raped her and thereafter, all the accused persons went away. The victim, thereafter, managed to come to one Khatu Budhi and narrated the incident to her and also narrated the incident to one Malia Samal. Finding no other alternative the victim went to the house of Birabra Samanta and narrated the incident to him who advised her to go to the Police Station and while she was going to the P. S. she met one Home Guard, namely, Fakir Das and with the Home Guard she came to the P.S. and on her oral report F.I.R. was drawn up and a case under Section 448 and 376 of the I.P.C. was registered by the Police and investigation was taken up. The victim lady was sent for medical examination, her wearing apparels were also seized and some wearing apparels of the accused persons were also seized and sent for chemical examination and after receipt of the chemical examination report and on completion of the investigation the accused persons were charge-sheeted and trial commenced and ultimately the order of acquittal which is assailed in this Appeal. During hearing of the appeal none appeared for the accused persons. The Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State argued the matter and I have also scrutinized the evidence on record adduced on the side of the prosecution.

(3.) Admittedly, there is absolutely no other evidence than that of the evidence of the victim lady. The story of narration of the incident by the victim lady to one Khatu Budhi has not been substantiated and so also the narration of the incident just after the incident to Malia Samal. Both Khatu Budhi and Malia Samal who have been examined by the prosecution to give corroboration of the testimony of the victim have totally denied their knowledge about the incident. Strangely, the husband of the victim lady has not been examined in this case. It is normally expected that after such a ghastly incident the victim would first run to her near and dear ones and in the present case the victim had to first meet her husband and narrate the incident to him and would have accompanied him to the P. S. to ventilate the grievance against the accused persons. As I find from the evidence there is no whisper that the victim lady after the incident intimated the matter to her husband which appears to be somewhat abnormal. Apart from that, the evidence that the victim lady went to the house of Birabara Samanta and consulted him and as per his advice went to the P.S. goes to create doubt about actual fact circumstance of the incident. Admittedly, the P.S. in question, i.e., Paradeep Police Station situates at a distance of ten kilometers from the house of the victim and it is motorable and it is not understood as to why the F.I.R. was lodged nearly twelve hours after the incident. It is true that in a case of rape delay in lodging FIR should not be given any importance. But in the instant case, as it appears, after the incident the victim intimating about the incident to Khatu Budhi and Malia Samal (P.Ws. 4 and 5 respectively) went to the P.S. and if at all she left for the P.S. at about 9 a.m. in the morning even without meeting her husband it would not have taken her that long so as to reach the P.S. to report about the incident. Meeting Birabar Samanta and going to the house of Birabara and consulting him and being advised by him only to go to the P.S. she went to the P.S. is sufficient to create doubt as because there is evidence on record that these accused persons were not pulling well with said Birabara Samanta as they had filed some bhag tenant cases against him and there was a dispute between this victim and her husband on the one hand and the accused persons on the other regarding damage of crop by the cattle of this victim over the land cultivated by the accused persons. In such a situation the victim going to the house of Birabara Samanta before lodging the F.I.R. and the delay caused in lodging of the F.I.R. are the circumstances that cannot be lost sight of. Admittedly, there is absolutely no evidence of rape in the medical report and there is evidence that in the very same evening after lodging the F.I.R. the victim was sent to the Doctor and the Doctor examined her for the first time at 11 p.m. in the same night again at about 9 a.m. in the morning, i.e., 10-4-1989. The Doctor did not find any trace of incriminating material or sign of rape, although it is the case of the victim that she was raped forcibly by four persons and throughout she was struggling with them to wriggle out of their clutches and that she was thrown on the ground with force and she was physically protesting by kicking and pushing, but to no purpose. The Doctor did not find any injury on any part of the body of the victim to give slightest corroboration to the story of rape.